I don't think that being manly has anything to do with sharing chores around the house, or with being RUGGED. It has more to do with a leadership role. The more I read, and the older I get, the more I agree that the husband should be the leader of the family in many ways.

Any other women. What roles do you need men to fill which aren't related to being the breadwinner or your protector?

My husband and I have really stood the traditional marital arrangements on their head. I'm the breadwinner, Mr. Southside is a stay-at-home dad. He does almost all the housework, laundry, and dishes. I cook and do the household repairs.We share childcare, although since he's home while I'm at work, he ends up doing more. I'm not a manly woman and he's not an un-manly man. I would say that we're both intellectual nerds, actually -- and we're very post feminist.

My father and mother are actually quite upset by the arrangement. I had a traditional father who worked in construction and then came home and expected my mother to do absolutely everything in the house -- had absolutely nothing to do with childrearing until we were in college. My mother also worked full time and then complained loudly about all she had to do all by herself. I absolutely positively did not want to end up like her. I find it very ironic that she finds my arrangement to be problematic. She called my husband "the butler" on one of her visits and I thought my husband would toss her out.

I like our arrangement, but it's not without it's difficultites. I feel some resentment toward my husband that I couldn't have been the one to stay home with our children as babies, or at least worked less than I did. I suppose there was no way around it as I have the better career options, but darn it, I would have loved to have had the time to nuture my children more. We also disagree on some parts of child-rearing and since he's home more, his methods are often more implemented than mine. I'm also a little stressed at having to be the only source of family income -- I made a vow that I would never rely on a man to provide for me a long time ago -- but it would sure be nice to have a little more career freedom sometimes.

I really dislike this idea that a man has to be the family leader or the "moral compass" of the family. That's so outdated and assumes that a woman couldn't fulfil the same role. Why is it that a man can't feel empowered to be a good father and husband without diminishing his wife? Why can't there be two family leaders -- isn't a marriage a team activity? I don't like the idea of roles -- it's too limiting and there's too much to do in a family situation to get stuck in such limiting categories.

I don't think that being manly has anything to do with sharing chores around the house.

I disagree, and this is why:

Since women are generally not forced into a dependant role these days, they have taken a more active role in the economic and public life of the family. Given that confining women to a subservient position is a bad thing (I hope you agree), men need to take on some of the domestic duties that used to fall exclusively to women. If men do not rise to the occasion in this sense, they are dimishing their stature and power, because their contribution to the family will have diminished comparatively.

Although I have many old-fashioned domestic aptitudes, I can confidently assert that I would get some serious cabin fever if I filled only a traditional domestic role in my family. For my own fulfillment and sanity, I need intellectual challenges, opportunities to interact with adults, and also the status that comes from acheivments in professional life.

My boss is a powerful woman who is also fully feminine and sexy, and I really do find it appealing in a straight-up manly way when men can show they can cook a killer pasta, nurture pets and kids, and manage household details. That kind of competence is impressive partly because I respect the difficulty of domestic labor, and the inherent nobility of doing anything well. Any person should be able to take pride in excelence of accomplishment, maturity in relationships, and exhibiting the fortitude that is needed to get screaming toddlers through the grocery store at 6pm rush.

I don't think that being manly has anything to do with sharing chores around the house, or with being RUGGED. It has more to do with a leadership role. The more I read, and the older I get, the more I agree that the husband should be the leader of the family in many ways.

Every organization has leaders and dependents.

I can't go there. It's too much like the Baptist Church in the south. Women, submit to your superiors.

Some of the guys were talking about their dads as role models. OK, my dad was a lawyer, making maybe $250k in the '70's. My brother has a little plant nursery and thinks he can live the same way. Trading in the cars every 2 years, wife not working, maids, lawn service, blah blah blah. He is now facing bankruptcy. Why the disconnect? Why did our same dad tell me to get a degree and be self supporting, and let my brother drop out, and then set him up in business, build him a home and buy property, like he was the powerless one? It still confounds me. He hunts, fishes, drives a huge a$$ truck, but he's not manly. He has never done a thing to take responsibility for his family that was not given to him.

Since women are generally not forced into a dependant role these days, they have taken a more active role in the economic and public life of the family. Given that confining women to a subservient position is a bad thing (I hope you agree), men need to take on some of the domestic duties that used to fall exclusively to women. If men do not rise to the occasion in this sense, they are dimishing their stature and power, because their contribution to the family will have diminished comparatively.

Although I have many old-fashioned domestic aptitudes, I can confidently assert that I would get some serious cabin fever if I filled only a traditional domestic role in my family. For my own fulfillment and sanity, I need intellectual challenges, opportunities to interact with adults, and also the status that comes from acheivments in professional life.

My boss is a powerful woman who is also fully feminine and sexy, and I really do find it appealing in a straight-up manly way when men can show they can cook a killer pasta, nurture pets and kids, and manage household details. That kind of competence is impressive partly because I respect the difficulty of domestic labor, and the inherent nobility of doing anything well. Any person should be able to take pride in excelence of accomplishment, maturity in relationships, and exhibiting the fortitude that is needed to get screaming toddlers through the grocery store at 6pm rush.

Of course I agree that women shouldn't be confined to subservient roles. I don't agree that men NEED to take on domestic duties. Demanding that they do diminishes their stature as leaders of a family. A good leader will rise to the occasion by taking on domestic duties.

I am a pretty strong, confident woman. My husband never was a leader, and this upset dynamics of our relationship. I contributed financially to our household when I could, and when it was necessary, I stopped working to care for our kids. I struggled with sacrificing the challenges and stimulation of having a job, but soon found fulfillment in raising my kids and domestic responsibilities. I did not feel confined to that role.

My friend's husband had a stroke at 43. Thankfully, he recovered pretty well, but had to give up his job. My friend had to go back to work, and she earns the paycheck. He, however, is the leader of their family, even though he is confined to a domestic role. He is not a dictator, but his wife respects and depends on his leadership. Neither are diminished in any way, and she feels comforted and protected by his leadership.

I think what you find appealing in a man who can cook for you, nurture kids and manage some domestic duties is that he would care enough for your well-being to do those things for you. That he could act on that emotion is what is manly, not that he performs the tasks. That is the point I am trying to make.

I think what you find appealing in a man who can cook for you, nurture kids and manage some domestic duties is that he would care enough for your well-being to do those things for you. That he could act on that emotion is what is manly, not that he performs the tasks. That is the point I am trying to make.

No, it's entirely that he performs these tasks. As one of my former P&Z chairmen said "Well, the road to heck is paved with good intentions, isn't it, son?". If a man is physically incapable, no problem. But intent with no follow thru, a problem.

I spent 10 years married to my kid's dad. I worked many nights at public hearings but I still got 99% of the house cleaning and kid care. His shtick: "I work all day, I don't come home to work". Never mind I worked nights and weekends. Bull. I came home and worked my ass off every night. It is exhausting to take over every freaking task because Mr Manly won't do it.

Manly is not macho. Manly is not hands-off with the kids. Manly is not watching sports all weekend and knowing every beer made in the USA. Guys need to be manly in helping to nurture their families and friends and yes! if somebody needs a guy with a chainsaw and you have one, go do that! Just like some of us bake casseroles. Just keep stomping those roaches for us.

No, it's entirely that he performs these tasks. As one of my former P&Z chairmen said "Well, the road to heck is paved with good intentions, isn't it, son?". If a man is physically incapable, no problem. But intent with no follow thru, a problem.

I spent 10 years married to my kid's dad. I worked many nights at public hearings but I still got 99% of the house cleaning and kid care. His shtick: "I work all day, I don't come home to work". Never mind I worked nights and weekends. Bull. I came home and worked my ass off every night. It is exhausting to take over every freaking task because Mr Manly won't do it.

Manly is not macho. Manly is not hands-off with the kids. Manly is not watching sports all weekend and knowing every beer made in the USA. Guys need to be manly in helping to nurture their families and friends and yes! if somebody needs a guy with a chainsaw and you have one, go do that! Just like some of us bake casseroles. Just keep stomping those roaches for us.

Anyone can performthe tasks. But we all want to know that the person we care about cares enough about our well-being to perform them. That sentiment would be lost on a domestic employee. Well, most of them.

I spent 20 years married to my kids' dad. He had little problem helping around the house, but the follow-through meant nothing without the intent, because he wouldn't, couldn't lead. He was wishy washy and not confident enough in himself to make decisions.

Manly is not macho - that's what I mean! And my way of thinking is far from Baptist. Some men, some religions, take the beginning statement of Paul's literally, but they don't finish the chapter - men, love your wives as you love yourselves; women, respect (not submit to) your husbands. I don't want to turn this into a Biblical discussion, because I am far from qualified, but the whole idea generates from Paul's Letter to the Ephesians.

He had little problem helping around the house, but the follow-through meant nothing without the intent, because he wouldn't, couldn't lead. He was wishy washy and not confident enough in himself to make decisions.

I was going to post something about this. Guys can be manly in lots of different ways and that's great. But a guy who is wishy washy and can't make a decision? Not acceptable. That's the one manly trait I can't live without, the confidence to make a decision and stick with it, all on his own.

My husband just read this and said to mention that he watches Sex and the City and rebuilds carburetors in the bathtub. Guess which one isn't true?

I vote SatC is true! Come on it is winter I would need the tub for my long soaks!

Manliness....I honestly don't know! I like the idea of co partners, co leaders with each individual rising to the occassion as needed and where their talents lie, the untalented I would expect to try hard and do their best in all areas not shirking responsibilities just because there is a more capable man or woman in the house.

I would expect the natural born leader of the partnership to be fair and learn to compromise their wishes and wants with those of their spouse. I expect the natural born follower to step up to the plate, make a stand on issues important to them and learn to wrangle with the leader as needed to keep a balance of power in the relationship.

Here is my beef about manliness, Mister, I don't care how busy, important, stressed or distracted you are, expect to keep in touch with your own parents and siblings and do not depend on your spouse to do it for you!

While there are some differing views and some great conversation here (among the women! I love hearing their side!! ) I just want to say that:

You are ALL correct!

Some of the things that disturb me about some men is the false manliness that I have seen myself and have read being discussed above. A man who does not help out domestically is no man at all. A man who is not a present and attentive father is no man at all. A man can sit and watch a movie or show of his wife's choosing and still fix that carburetor in the bath tub. I scoff a men who declare domestic duties to be "women's work". Those men to me are admitting to being unable to care for themselves and are depandant, lazy oafs; this of course not to discount the ever hard working women who tirelessly live day-to-day with men like (as I have seen with my MIL).

I ironed my wife's shirt this morning, before I left to haul bags of sand and help with the snowplowing.

You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
-Peart

Anyone can performthe tasks. But we all want to know that the person we care about cares enough about our well-being to perform them. That sentiment would be lost on a domestic employee. Well, most of them.

I agree, and also think intent is important as well. My ex-husband would frequently take the effort to bring me coffee at work, make me lunch, nice things like that. Tried to show the nice, loving, caring, husband. When it comes down to it, he was cheating on me a huge amount of the time, even when he was doing the nice things. So for him, it was all about the appearance and reputation, not about the deed itself.

If your wife asks you what you want to do when it comes to making plans to go out for dinner, a night out, etc. you must always make a decision and not pull one of those "I don't care" or "Well, what do you want to do?"

She asked you because she wants you to decide. Be a man. Make a decsion.

I can't go there. It's too much like the Baptist Church in the south. Women, submit to your superiors.

Can I just say that that phrase is misused and taken out of context way too much by both sides in the feminism debate in a Christian context. Yes, wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. However, husbands, in return, are to love their wives like Christ loved the church... to the point of death. If both sides lived up to both ideas, I don't think there would be too much of an issue with the statement.

For reference, here's the direct quote from Ephesians 5:21-33 (NLT):

21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.

31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” 32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. 33 So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Thoughts

In the opinion of this Bear, real men will.....

Be polite. (I still hold the doors open for men or women.)
Be a good listener.
Admit that they cry.
Not kick or abuse children, other men, other women.
Not kick or abuse animals.
Be honest. (Tact necessary here.)
Be supportive.
Acknowledge other's right to an opinion (even if that opinion is so very wrong).

Consider George Washington's The Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation

That's an interesting list. Some of the items on that list have merit while others appear to be little more than arbitrary social conventions. Worthy rules/codes of behavior are ones that are founded on consideration of other people's feelings IMO. But things like

10. When you sit down, keep your feet firm and even, without putting one on the other or crossing them.

appear to be more of an arbitrary 'this-is-polite-because-it-is-supposed-to-be-polite' type rule.

UPDATE: Are the Suburbs Killing Manliness?

I wanted to post this article from the AoM blog here since we have many commentaries on the suburbs. This article speaks about control. The suburbs offering complete control of ones life. As men, are we bred to be in control? Is the lack of control over our lives sapping manhood? This article brings up some interesting points, in the discussion of control.
I originally thought of this topic in the amount of work I'd like to do at home and the amount of work my new suburban home requires. My main work now involves shoveling snow when required; and then mowing the grass once a week in the summer. Outdoor tasks that require completion, but somehow lacking in the over spectrum of providing for my family.

‘The space around us–the physical organization of neighborhoods, roads, yards, houses, and apartments–sets up living patterns that condition our behavior.’…the environment of the suburbs weathers one’s soul peculiarly. That is, there are environmental variables, mostly invisible, that oxidize the human spirit, like what happens to the metal of an ungaraged car.

Seems that the ease of suburban life as allowed men to slip into the path of least resistance. While it is nice not having to face mortal danger everyday, there still sems something lacking. The article is summed up pretty well:The path to keeping your manhood intact while living in the suburbs is not the one of least resistance. Instead, it consists of willingly placing yourself in situations outside of your complete control, with no guarantees, and deciding to continue on anyway. These situations do not have to consist of killing a large animal or spending a week in Alaska (though each of those would certainly help), they simply require not giving up on the adventures right under your nose

You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
-Peart

I wanted to post this article from the AoM blog here since we have many commentaries on the suburbs. This article speaks about control. The suburbs offering complete control of ones life. As men, are we bred to be in control? Is the lack of control over our lives sapping manhood? This article brings up some interesting points, in the discussion of control.
I originally thought of this topic in the amount of work I'd like to do at home and the amount of work my new suburban home requires. My main work now involves shoveling snow when required; and then mowing the grass once a week in the summer. Outdoor tasks that require completion, but somehow lacking in the over spectrum of providing for my family.

zman - It seems that you are equating manliness with "man vs. nature" or man as the builder or fixer of things with his hands.

I would argue that this is an outdated mode of thinking and that we are actually a better society because "men" are not so preoccupied with being the traditional "man", not that that can't be a part of manliness.

Sorry for all the quotations.....I have a problem.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

zman - It seems that you are equating manliness with "man vs. nature" or man as the builder or fixer of things with his hands.

I would argue that this is an outdated mode of thinking and that we are actually a better society because "men" are not so preoccupied with being the traditional "man", not that that can't be a part of manliness.

Sorry for all the quotations.....I have a problem.

I see what you are saying and I am equating the entire realm of manliness on that aspect. I guess I am looking into many details and relating them to my own life. I would prefer to live in a situation where I had to chop wood to heat the house, where I had to do more around the house than what my current situation allows. This is a small aspect of manliness and in my eyes would help me be more comfortable and feel more useful in my daily life.

You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
-Peart

Actually, I applaud zman for what it appears he's attempting to do. I'll let him explain his own intents and purposes, but it looks to me that he's trying in his own 21st century way to attempt something similar in a way to a 'stunt' pulled 200 years ago.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what is not life, living is so dear; nor did i wish to practive resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to tout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole genuine meanness of it

The sheer complexity of modern life tends to obscure our purposes under so many layers of rules, instruction books, diplomas and certificates. It's all to easy to go with the flow and wind up at some point downstream we never intended to go. Perhaps he's not building his own cabin in the wilderness, but he is making an intentional effort to sacrifice efficiency/convenience, and 'trying on' aspects of a simpler traditional male paradigm, allows someone the freedom of viewing one's role in the world with several of those layers removed and possibly provide a clearer understanding of Purpose in the process.

When it's done our young Thoreau may come out of the 'woods' with a different perpective and aim in life. Good for him!

If your wife asks you what you want to do when it comes to making plans to go out for dinner, a night out, etc. you must always make a decision and not pull one of those "I don't care" or "Well, what do you want to do?"

She asked you because she wants you to decide. Be a man. Make a decsion.

And when the husband/boyfriend asks the wife/girlfriend "what do you want to do?, then she should offer an opinion. "I don't care" or "Well, what do you want to do?" doesn't hack it. Be a woman. Make a decision.

I am a little tired of my wife doing that and then rolling her eyes or huffing through dinner because she said she didn't care and doesn't like my choice. In fact, when she does that passive-aggressive stuff, I usually pick a place I know she won't like. I only wish my town had a Hooters.

"I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

The sheer complexity of modern life tends to obscure our purposes under so many layers of rules, instruction books, diplomas and certificates. It's all to easy to go with the flow and wind up at some point downstream we never intended to go. Perhaps he's not building his own cabin in the wilderness, but he is making an intentional effort to sacrifice efficiency/convenience, and 'trying on' aspects of a simpler traditional male paradigm, allows someone the freedom of viewing one's role in the world with several of those layers removed and possibly provide a clearer understanding of Purpose in the process.

When it's done our young Thoreau may come out of the 'woods' with a different perpective and aim in life. Good for him!

I'm not knocking zman. Nothing makes me feel better than being outside and working in my yard, or going camping and making a fire from scratch. It speaks to the primative beginning of man.

I just don't want Z to get lost in the woods and never come back!

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"